Talk:Cecil Calvert, 2nd Baron Baltimore
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I'm seeing Cecilius rendered as "Caecilius" in several places including on the charter for the Maryland colony. Does anyone think that's wrong? Does anyone think the "ae" should be rendered with the funky æ character? help!
- The use of 'ae' vs 'æ' is purely a matter of stylistic choice in Latin and French spelling. It is however not standard usage in English. Latin words and names were commonly transcribed into English by consolidating 'ae' to 'e.' Hence in British English the word 'anaesthetic' is written 'anesthetic' in American English as the spelling reform movement was less conservative in the United States than in Britain. Jm3106jr (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree that it is stylistic in Latin and French. It is not stylistic nor correct in English. It is appropriate to mention the alternative historic spellings, but this article is in English and the references need to be in English without the typographic ligature. BeadleB (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The Name Baltimore
As I understand, the town Baltimore, Maryland comes from Caecilius calvert, 2nd Baron Baltimore. But where does the name of Baron come from? I cannot find such place in Ireland, at least. Is tehere a possible feedback to America, since the Baltic Sea is in Russian Baltiiskoye More, and in Maryland and Delaware there have been lots of newcomers from Sweden, and very probably Russia, too. Does anybody know? thanks --Höyhens 11:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- It is (or at least was when the title was created) a place in County Longford. Proteus (Talk) 12:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- The word Baron is a title of nobility not a place name. Thus the title 2nd Baron Baltimore means that Calvert was the Second Baron of Baltimore in Ireland. The original town of Baltimore - after which the capital of Maryland is named - is located in County Cork on the southwestern Irish coast and not in County Longford. Jm3106jr (talk) 23:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Date of birth
I know that numerous sources list Cecil's date of birth as August 8, 1605, but Browne (page 4) has him born in 1606. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the article as well. Qblik 22:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Latin Phrase deleted
In the beginning paragraph after Cecil Calvert, 2nd Lord Baltimore's full title, I deleted the following sentence: "A Latin term is 'Scvto Bonae Volvntatis Tvae Coronasti Nos, 1632'." This is not a Latin version of his title, but is a text encircling the reverse side of the original colonial seal of the Province of Maryland and is still used as the Great Seal of the State of Maryland today. The Latin text encircling the seal, Scuto bonæ voluntatis tuæ coronasti nos, is from Psalm 5:12 in the Vulgate, the Latin bible. It translates as "Thou hast crowned us with the shield of thy goodwill." The founding date of the colony, 1632, completes the text. Jm3106jr (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Burial Site Incorrect in Article?
This article claims the 2nd Baron is buried in the USA on city hall grounds in Baltimore. The site thepeerage.com states he is buried at St. Gile's-in-the-Fields Church, London, England, this seems more likely as he never visited Maryland. If anyone knows definitively please correct the article, it would be appreciated. Link to the "thepeerage.com" article below.
Update: This error appears to have been fixed.
Roman Catholicism not official
The Province of Maryland was never officially Roman Catholic. Trinitarian Christians, including Catholics, were officially tolerated according to the Maryland Toleration Act of 1649, although the Act was temporarily rescinded in favor of Protestants between 1654-1658. Toleration lasted another 31 years until it was ended permanently during the Protestant Revolution of 1689. Roman Catholics and non-Protestants would not be fully emancipated for 87 more years in Maryland until the American Revolution of 1776. Jm3106jr (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)/00:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Baltimore's colony in Newfoundland confusion
This section is confusing. There has been an expansion request on it since 2008. As it reads now, the father had title to a part of Newfoundland, the son got title to the entire island, but the father opposed this new title. Is this correct? It IS possible that it was because of family feuding, but it seems that the father might be happy that the family possessions had been expanded so much. Can anyone clarify this? BeadleB (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)